Brendan W . Clark
I am a corporate litigation associate attorney at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. in Wilmington, Delaware. I am also a 2024 J.D. graduate of William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia and a 2021 graduate of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, from which I hold a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, in History and Public Policy & Law. At Trinity, I also minored in Religious Studies at Trinity.
My particular research interests include British history, of both the medieval period and of the Empire in the 19th and 20th centuries, constitutional and early Anglo-American common law, equitable jurisprudence and Delaware legal history, medieval custom and law, and contemporary notions of contract law. The Restatements and the history of the American Law Institute, particularly their impact on the development of modern legal systems, is also an area of interest. Further, interests also fall within the ambit of religion, particularly studies of the Protestant Reformation, the history of Anglicanism, and the nexus of law and religion in American legal history.
My legal research corpus includes three legal notes. The first, "The Clearfield Compromise Revisited: Federal Common Law Post-Erie and Contemporary Preemption Issues for the 'Intimately Involved' Sovereign," looks to nuanced issues of federal preemption and a circuit split around how to discern when the sovereign is so "intimately involved" as to preempt state law in particular areas. My second note, "A 'Conspiracy of Colons and Capital Letters': A Brief Discourse on the Founding Fathers’ Penchant for Capitalizing Common Nouns," takes a palaeographic approach to the study of the Constitution and considers the Founding Fathers' intent in capitalization practices in drafts circulated by the Committee of Detail, Committee of Style, and the final engrossed copy. Observations on so-called drafters' intent originalism and the implications for originalist thought are also briefly considered. The third, "The Federal Common Law of Remedies: Clearfield's Compromise, Federal Common Law Post-Erie, and Preemption Issues In Antitrust Remedies," builds on my previous research on the Supreme Court's decision in Clearfield and considers the ability of the federal courts to craft common law remedies in antitrust actions.
Personal research, unrelated to institutional commitments, has focused on early American whaling law, as well as work on a manuscript biography of Edward S. Harkness, an American philanthropist and heir to a Standard Oil fortune who reimagined education in elite boarding schools and colleges of the Northeastern United States during the early twentieth century. Additional current projects include a short survey of maritime and the leisure "yachting culture" among America's industrial elite at the dawn of the Gilded Age.
Past research interests have included the history of the “chantry” or “obiit” trust system in medieval law, studies on Edward Gibbon's magisterial History of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and the English academic squabbles of Richard Bentley, the early 18th century master of Trinity College, Cambridge and a noted academic, as well as my academic work on the Restatements and "secret histories" in my respective senior theses at Trinity.
At Trinity, I undertook a variety of academic and institutional positions, including, among others, service as an Undergraduate Fellow at the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life, Student Representative to the College’s Faculty Curriculum Committee, Senior Sacristan of the Trinity College Chapel, and Editor-in-Chief of the Trinity Tripod, the College’s weekly student newspaper.
At William & Mary Law School, I served as President of the Business Law Society, President of the George Wythe Society, and as a member of the Legal History Society, among others. I was also a member of the Law School's Moot Court team, a Dean's Associate, and a Symposium Editor of the William & Mary Business Law Review.
Supervisors: Associate Professor of History Jonathan Elukin (Trinity College), Professor of History Jennifer M. Regan-Lefebvre (Trinity College), Professor of the Practice in Public Policy and Law Glenn W. Falk, Esq. (Trinity College), Associate Professor of Legal and Policy Studies Adrienne Fulco (Trinity College), and Rita Anne Rollins Professor of Law Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl (William & Mary Law School)
Address: 920 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801
My particular research interests include British history, of both the medieval period and of the Empire in the 19th and 20th centuries, constitutional and early Anglo-American common law, equitable jurisprudence and Delaware legal history, medieval custom and law, and contemporary notions of contract law. The Restatements and the history of the American Law Institute, particularly their impact on the development of modern legal systems, is also an area of interest. Further, interests also fall within the ambit of religion, particularly studies of the Protestant Reformation, the history of Anglicanism, and the nexus of law and religion in American legal history.
My legal research corpus includes three legal notes. The first, "The Clearfield Compromise Revisited: Federal Common Law Post-Erie and Contemporary Preemption Issues for the 'Intimately Involved' Sovereign," looks to nuanced issues of federal preemption and a circuit split around how to discern when the sovereign is so "intimately involved" as to preempt state law in particular areas. My second note, "A 'Conspiracy of Colons and Capital Letters': A Brief Discourse on the Founding Fathers’ Penchant for Capitalizing Common Nouns," takes a palaeographic approach to the study of the Constitution and considers the Founding Fathers' intent in capitalization practices in drafts circulated by the Committee of Detail, Committee of Style, and the final engrossed copy. Observations on so-called drafters' intent originalism and the implications for originalist thought are also briefly considered. The third, "The Federal Common Law of Remedies: Clearfield's Compromise, Federal Common Law Post-Erie, and Preemption Issues In Antitrust Remedies," builds on my previous research on the Supreme Court's decision in Clearfield and considers the ability of the federal courts to craft common law remedies in antitrust actions.
Personal research, unrelated to institutional commitments, has focused on early American whaling law, as well as work on a manuscript biography of Edward S. Harkness, an American philanthropist and heir to a Standard Oil fortune who reimagined education in elite boarding schools and colleges of the Northeastern United States during the early twentieth century. Additional current projects include a short survey of maritime and the leisure "yachting culture" among America's industrial elite at the dawn of the Gilded Age.
Past research interests have included the history of the “chantry” or “obiit” trust system in medieval law, studies on Edward Gibbon's magisterial History of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and the English academic squabbles of Richard Bentley, the early 18th century master of Trinity College, Cambridge and a noted academic, as well as my academic work on the Restatements and "secret histories" in my respective senior theses at Trinity.
At Trinity, I undertook a variety of academic and institutional positions, including, among others, service as an Undergraduate Fellow at the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life, Student Representative to the College’s Faculty Curriculum Committee, Senior Sacristan of the Trinity College Chapel, and Editor-in-Chief of the Trinity Tripod, the College’s weekly student newspaper.
At William & Mary Law School, I served as President of the Business Law Society, President of the George Wythe Society, and as a member of the Legal History Society, among others. I was also a member of the Law School's Moot Court team, a Dean's Associate, and a Symposium Editor of the William & Mary Business Law Review.
Supervisors: Associate Professor of History Jonathan Elukin (Trinity College), Professor of History Jennifer M. Regan-Lefebvre (Trinity College), Professor of the Practice in Public Policy and Law Glenn W. Falk, Esq. (Trinity College), Associate Professor of Legal and Policy Studies Adrienne Fulco (Trinity College), and Rita Anne Rollins Professor of Law Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl (William & Mary Law School)
Address: 920 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801
less
InterestsView All (92)
Uploads
Law School Notes and Legal Scholarship by Brendan W . Clark
Taking as case studies the decision of the Eighth Circuit's decision in Travelers v. IADA Services (8th Cir. 2007) and the decision of the Second Circuit in Chemung Canal Trust Co. v. Sovran Bank / Maryland (2d Cir. 1991), the note considers the implication for the antitrust litigant and the "great diversity in results" that would subvert the antitrust regime and its principal anticompetitive objectives by constraining the ability of federal courts to craft remedies. Additionally, issues of federalism, judicial restraint, and exceptions to the Erie Doctrine's attendant limitations on the development of "general federal common law" are considered.
Abstract:
Antitrust law, codified under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, among other provisions of federal law, plays a key role in the regulation of corporations, the actions of the free market, and in the functioning of modern corporations. This Note seeks to examine antitrust remedies-both those provided under statute and those conceived of at common law-in relation to another corpus of law: the federal common law. While historically "maligned" and severely restrained in the notable Supreme Court decision of Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, federal common law persists in a limited number of areas and for a variety of purposes, but especially in certain enclaves where federal concerns have been held to uniquely predominate. This Note looks at these issues of federal common law, along with parallel concerns of preemption, in the context of antitrust remedies, using the Supreme Court's qualification of Erie generally in Clearfield Trust Company v. United States and its later discourse in the context of the antitrust remedy of contribution in Texas Industries v. Radcliff Materials to guide an analysis of some foundational concerns presented by the federal common law. Finally, this Note considers more contemporary circuit applications of Texas Industries and two competing approaches advanced by those circuits as a prism to consider common law remedies and the extent to which the federal common law today may provide an avenue to relief in the absence of an express grant of authority by federal statute. Together, this Note seeks to proffer insight for parties to an antitrust action who collectively ponder: what remedies exist beyond those expressly stated in the statute and how does the federal common law shape the development of those remedies? What are the limitations on remedies and how do we (or should we) proceed in the absence of express remedial schemes in the statute itself?
Program: Juris Doctor, William & Mary Law School
The corpus of the paper is a close comparison of drafts of the Constitutional Convention's Committee of Detail and Committee of Style and their particular deviations in capitalization, with a focus on what this might convey about the Constitution in relation to grammatical understandings at the time of the founding. Additional points of interest include the "Great Semicolon Debate of 1823." A close review of some capitalization provisions in the official, engrossed copy of the Constitution and their implications are also considered. Finally, this paper offers some thoughts on contemporary issues in originalism, with a particular assessment of the role that capitalization could play in understandings of drafters' intent originalism.
Program: Juris Doctor, William & Mary Law School
By considering Erie's implication against the development of "general federal common law" by the federal courts, this note reflects on the ability of the federal courts to develop common law in certain situations, especially those that concern unique federal issues and carry specific implications for the sweeping authority of the federal courts and federalism broadly.
Program: Juris Doctor, William & Mary Law School
Undergraduate Senior Theses by Brendan W . Clark
Advisors: Professor of the Practice in Public Policy and Law Glenn W. Falk and Visiting Professor of Public Policy and Law Michael Bangser
Program: B.A., Public Policy and Law, With Honors, Trinity College
Advisors: Associate Professors of History Jennifer Regan-Lefebvre and Jonathan M. Elukin
Program: B.A., History, With Honors, Trinity College
Undergraduate Papers by Brendan W . Clark
Program: B.A., Public Policy and Law, With Honors, Trinity College
Program: B.A., History, With Honors, Trinity College
In considering these conflicting body images, special attention is afforded to understanding the motivations of Christian suffering: Christ as an embodiment of suffering for us and suffering "dei gratia," for the grace of God.
This paper was prepared as part of the Trinity College Religious Studies Department's course 'Suffering Religion," taught by Associate Professor of Religious Studies Tamsin Jones.
Program: B.A., History, Religious Studies (Minor), With Honors, Trinity College
Consideration is given herein to the notion of "historical networks" and how Bentley adopted and utilized connections within the Restoration Church, c. 1680-1700, to position himself as the preeminent classical commentator and a respected Anglican theologian in the 1690s. Ultimately, Bentley would rely on these connections to ascend to his contentious tenure as Master of Trinity College in 1700.
Bentley's Phalaris controversy receives considerable attention, as does Bentley's mentorship in the Church of England under the Latitudinarian minister and later Bishop of Worcester Edward Stillingfleet.
This paper was prepared as part of the Trinity College History Department's 300-level workshop, taught by Borden W. Painter, Jr., '58/H'95 Professor of European History Kathleen Kete.
Program: B.A., History, With Honors, Trinity College
Papers (Published In Repositories) by Brendan W . Clark
Taking as case studies the decision of the Eighth Circuit's decision in Travelers v. IADA Services (8th Cir. 2007) and the decision of the Second Circuit in Chemung Canal Trust Co. v. Sovran Bank / Maryland (2d Cir. 1991), the note considers the implication for the antitrust litigant and the "great diversity in results" that would subvert the antitrust regime and its principal anticompetitive objectives by constraining the ability of federal courts to craft remedies. Additionally, issues of federalism, judicial restraint, and exceptions to the Erie Doctrine's attendant limitations on the development of "general federal common law" are considered.
Abstract:
Antitrust law, codified under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, among other provisions of federal law, plays a key role in the regulation of corporations, the actions of the free market, and in the functioning of modern corporations. This Note seeks to examine antitrust remedies-both those provided under statute and those conceived of at common law-in relation to another corpus of law: the federal common law. While historically "maligned" and severely restrained in the notable Supreme Court decision of Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, federal common law persists in a limited number of areas and for a variety of purposes, but especially in certain enclaves where federal concerns have been held to uniquely predominate. This Note looks at these issues of federal common law, along with parallel concerns of preemption, in the context of antitrust remedies, using the Supreme Court's qualification of Erie generally in Clearfield Trust Company v. United States and its later discourse in the context of the antitrust remedy of contribution in Texas Industries v. Radcliff Materials to guide an analysis of some foundational concerns presented by the federal common law. Finally, this Note considers more contemporary circuit applications of Texas Industries and two competing approaches advanced by those circuits as a prism to consider common law remedies and the extent to which the federal common law today may provide an avenue to relief in the absence of an express grant of authority by federal statute. Together, this Note seeks to proffer insight for parties to an antitrust action who collectively ponder: what remedies exist beyond those expressly stated in the statute and how does the federal common law shape the development of those remedies? What are the limitations on remedies and how do we (or should we) proceed in the absence of express remedial schemes in the statute itself?
Program: Juris Doctor, William & Mary Law School
The corpus of the paper is a close comparison of drafts of the Constitutional Convention's Committee of Detail and Committee of Style and their particular deviations in capitalization, with a focus on what this might convey about the Constitution in relation to grammatical understandings at the time of the founding. Additional points of interest include the "Great Semicolon Debate of 1823." A close review of some capitalization provisions in the official, engrossed copy of the Constitution and their implications are also considered. Finally, this paper offers some thoughts on contemporary issues in originalism, with a particular assessment of the role that capitalization could play in understandings of drafters' intent originalism.
Program: Juris Doctor, William & Mary Law School
By considering Erie's implication against the development of "general federal common law" by the federal courts, this note reflects on the ability of the federal courts to develop common law in certain situations, especially those that concern unique federal issues and carry specific implications for the sweeping authority of the federal courts and federalism broadly.
Program: Juris Doctor, William & Mary Law School
Advisors: Professor of the Practice in Public Policy and Law Glenn W. Falk and Visiting Professor of Public Policy and Law Michael Bangser
Program: B.A., Public Policy and Law, With Honors, Trinity College
Advisors: Associate Professors of History Jennifer Regan-Lefebvre and Jonathan M. Elukin
Program: B.A., History, With Honors, Trinity College
Program: B.A., Public Policy and Law, With Honors, Trinity College
Program: B.A., History, With Honors, Trinity College
In considering these conflicting body images, special attention is afforded to understanding the motivations of Christian suffering: Christ as an embodiment of suffering for us and suffering "dei gratia," for the grace of God.
This paper was prepared as part of the Trinity College Religious Studies Department's course 'Suffering Religion," taught by Associate Professor of Religious Studies Tamsin Jones.
Program: B.A., History, Religious Studies (Minor), With Honors, Trinity College
Consideration is given herein to the notion of "historical networks" and how Bentley adopted and utilized connections within the Restoration Church, c. 1680-1700, to position himself as the preeminent classical commentator and a respected Anglican theologian in the 1690s. Ultimately, Bentley would rely on these connections to ascend to his contentious tenure as Master of Trinity College in 1700.
Bentley's Phalaris controversy receives considerable attention, as does Bentley's mentorship in the Church of England under the Latitudinarian minister and later Bishop of Worcester Edward Stillingfleet.
This paper was prepared as part of the Trinity College History Department's 300-level workshop, taught by Borden W. Painter, Jr., '58/H'95 Professor of European History Kathleen Kete.
Program: B.A., History, With Honors, Trinity College